Abstract
Archaeologists have likely collected, as a conservative estimate, billions of artifacts over the course of the history of fieldwork. We have classified chronologies and typologies of these, based on various formal and physical characteristics or ethno-historically known analogues, to give structure to our interpretations of the people that used them. The simple truth, nonetheless, is that we do not actually know how they were used or their intended purpose. We only make inferences—i.e., educated guesses based on the available evidence as we understand it—regarding their functions in the past and the historical behaviors they reflect. Since those inferences are so fundamental to the interpretations of archaeological materials, and the archaeological project as a whole, the way we understand materiality can significantly bias the stories we construct of the past. Recent work demonstrated seemingly contradictory evidence between attributed purpose or function versus confirmed use, however, which suggested that a basic premise of those inferences did not empirically hold to be true. In each case, the apparent contradiction was resolved by reassessing what use, purpose, and function truly mean and whether certain long-established functional categories of artifacts were in fact classifying by function. The resulting triangulation, presented here, narrows the scope on such implicit biases by addressing both empirical and conceptual aspects of artifacts. In anchoring each aspect of evaluation to an empirical body of data, we back ourselves away from our assumptions and interpretations so as to let the artifacts speak for themselves.
Highlights
Every day, without pause, we select certain items, with preferred qualities, to perform some task
As archaeologists, would we look at an artifact and accept that its type determines its use? . . . that its form dictates its function? . . . that its decoration necessarily imparts specific meaning or purpose to the object itself? If human nature, need, adaptability, and innovation were as dynamic as they are —since people have always been people— interpreting artifacts and assemblages is a multifaceted question of purposes, uses, and functions beyond formal descriptions and typologies
Archaeologists are still left with a substantial quandary when it comes to interpreting materiality
Summary
Without pause, we select certain items, with (or perhaps without) preferred qualities, to perform some task. We can only observe that mugs seem to hold coffee or pens more or less often than not, extend that as an inference to the intentions regarding both purpose and function for objects of that type or form. Perhaps an item of ritual or ideological significance, purpose overrides any practical range of functions and thereby determines its possible uses This suggests a certain independence between intentionality and pragmatics that is not adequately appreciated in current approaches to interpreting artifacts and the materiality of behavior. Archaeologists might not need to travel in time to ask why the mug was holding pens if use, purpose, and function are interrelated characteristics intrinsic to the object. The answer, if we can understand it, has already been given
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
